Published in Planning in London, Issue 139, October 2026.
Intro
From November 2026, a new scheme of delegation will take effect which will block most minor planning applications from ever reaching full planning committee. MHCLG explains that these reforms are intended to ensure ‘greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees in planning decision making’, and that ‘[planning] committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, enabling other, often more minor and technical, decisions to be made by planning officers.’
In particular, this will see the end of or at least substantially frustrate the various forms of ‘briefing panels’ set up across the country, which allow some degree of councillor involvement on decisions usually taken through delegated powers. These panels could previously take decisions themselves or direct them to be made by planning committee, effectively overruling officers. Under the new scheme of delegation, the Chief Planning Officer (or similarly senior officer role) will retain the final decision on whether non-major applications can be referred to committee, while several types of minor applications (such as householder applications) are entirely blocked from referral. From November, whether minor applications can reach committee will become mostly a technocratic rather than a democratic decision.
However, the new scheme of delegation does not entirely preclude councillor involvement in the referral process for those applications not wholly blocked from reaching committee, albeit with no powers to actually overrule officers, and legal opinions published online suggest that existing briefing panels could be adapted to comply with the new scheme of delegation[1] Indeed, the government’s guidance on the topic does suggest a triage system for such referrals. The question for each local authority is whether they wish to retain or implement such triage systems, the extent of councillor involvement in these systems, and the appetite of the Chief Planning Officer to overrule councillor concerns in the event of any conflicts.
Camden
In Camden, under the current scheme any planning application whatsoever can potentially reach the full planning committee, to be determined by councillors rather than by planning officers. This is mediated by the Members Briefing Panel (‘MBP’), a panel of three councillors which can decide to refer a planning application to full committee where there are outstanding objections to a proposal.
The mere existence of the panel, and the bureaucratic overhead associated with referral to the panel, act as a key check to the decision-making powers of planning officers. It prevents or at least significantly discourages officers from simply ‘ignoring’ outstanding objections to a planning application, as failing to address these objections requires officers to write a lengthy report, await the decision of the panel, and potentially present the application to full committee. This creates a strong incentive to resolve objectionable elements of a scheme through negotiation with the applicant and objectors.
This power balance between the MBP and planning officers is not merely theoretical but has led to some notable bust-ups between councillors and officers. In 2021, senior members of the department engaged a QC to effectively strong-arm the MBP into withdrawing its objections to an application related to a major and controversial scheme in Swiss Cottage. While the MBP eventually backed down, it led to considerable local controversy, with MBP members complaining to the press about the conduct of the department. Certainly at the strategic level, the MBP appears to be considered an inconvenience to the planning department.
A Pretext for a Power Grab?
Under the new scheme of delegation, the current MBP cannot continue to function in its current format. Any attempt by the MBP to refer an application to full committee directly would be ultra vires as the decision-making power to do this would be retained by the Chief Planning Officer.
In response to this, the planning department promptly published proposed alterations to Camden’s constitution. These alterations were presented as being necessary to comply with the updated scheme of delegation. However, buried within the detail of appendices and through tactical omission of important information, the proposed constitutional alterations would go much further than what is strictly necessary to comply with the new regulations
In particular:
- The current Members Briefing Panel will cease to exist from November. The department did not propose any new form of triage system, nor even mention a triage system as being an option in its report, despite this being a recommendation of the new guidance.
- Several applications which will remain eligible for committee referral under the new regulations would be blocked from reaching committee in Camden. These include listed building consents, works to protected trees, and advertisement consents.
The planning department was also peculiarly hasty to have these alterations presented and approved at a full council meeting, failing to consult with or even present the alterations to the planning committee or MBP itself. This entirely precluded any discussion by the committee or MBP on the proposed changes, with the planning committee being presented these changes only after approved by the full council.
As it stands, despite objections from councillors and particularly the MBP, the planners’ proposed alterations are now approved. The MBP will cease to exist from November, and only major applications expressly reserved for full committee will ever reach committee. The Head of Development Management will retain the final decision on whether any other applications could reach committee, but no referral or triage system will exist except for applications voluntarily referred by officers themselves.
Commentary
In simple terms, it appears that the department is using the new scheme of delegation as a pretext to rid themselves of the MBP and any councillor involvement in decision-making whatsoever, save for those applications expressly reserved for full planning committee. Not only will this frustrate any councillor involvement in decision-making, but community and amenity groups will be excluded from any meaningful involvement during consultation which was previously mediated by the MBP and local councillors.
This is certainly a win for ‘efficiency’ and for the department’s own control over the consent process, but it is seriously questionable whether the (already variable) quality and consistency of decision-making at delegated level can be maintained under the new arrangement. Particularly in Camden where development pressures are high, councillors, local groups, and community members act as an important check to minor but potentially harmful applications being rubber-stamped. Any real incentive to resolve objections to such applications is now entirely removed, and one can only assume that this creates the ideal environment for over-stretched officers to sacrifice quality for quantity of decisions.
The general conduct of the department in having these reforms approved also raises further questions about the apparent rift between members and senior planning officers in Camden. Are members, and particularly the planning committee, simply considered an inconvenience to the planning department? One can only assume that if member input was valued, that an option for a triage system would have been presented, and at the very least that the views of the planning committee and MBP itself would have been taken into account prior to the full council meeting.
Concluding Remarks
The reforms to the national scheme of delegation are very much in the spirit of the Starmer government’s piecemeal and arguably counterproductive reforms to planning. Of course, full planning committees will now run more efficiently, slightly easing the path of major developments through the consent process, but it is highly doubtful whether this will have any meaningful effect in enabling or encouraging development given current economic conditions. On the other hand, the cost to local democracy and the quality of delegated decisions will not be insignificant, and in the case of Camden will certainly be detrimental.
Given the new PM’s apparent support of local communities and general focus on infrastructure and planning, one wonders whether the national scheme may be subject to further alterations in the coming years. As such, this may only be a short-term issue, but whether the political will exists to reinstate the MBP in Camden is an open question.
For other London councils, and councils across the country, their response to the new scheme of delegation will be coloured by the pre-existing power balance between officers and councillors, and the extent to which community and local involvement is valued in the decision-making process.
[1] https://www.39essex.com/our-thinking/insights/roles-for-members-in-the-new-delegated-arrangements-for-planning-decisions/